"Isis Unveiled" and the "Theosophist" on Reincarnation

HP Blavatsky @ Theosophy Trust

"ISIS UNVEILED" AND THE "THEOSOPHIST" ON REINCARNATION

IN Light (July 8) C.C.M. quotes from the THEOSOPHIST (June 1882) a sentence which appeared in the Editor's Note at the foot of an article headed "Seeming Discrepancies."
Then, turning to the review of "The Perfect Way" in the same number, he quotes
at length from "an authoritative teaching of the later period,"as
he adds rather sarcastically. Then, again, a long paragraph from Isis. The three quotations and the remarks of our friend run thus:

"There never was, nor can there be, any radical discrepancy
between the teachings in 'Isis' ('Isis Unveiled') and those of this later
period, as both proceed from one and the same source--the ADEPT BROTHERS. (Editor's Note in Seeming
Discrepancies.")

Having drawn the attention of his readers to the above assertion C.C.M.
proceeds to show--as he thinks--its fallacy:

"To begin with, re-Incarnation--if other worlds besides this are
taken into account--is the regular routine of nature. But re-Incarnation in
the next higher objective world is one thing; re-Incarnation on this earth is
another. Even that takes place over and over again till the highest
condition of humanity, as known on this earth, is attained, but not
afterwards, and here is the clue to the mystery.... But once let a man be as
far perfected by successive re-incarnations as the present race will
permit, and then his next re-incarnation will be among the early
growths of the next higher world, where the earliest growths are far higher
than the highest here. The ghastly mistake that the modern
re-lncarnationists make is in supposing that there can be a return on this
earth to lower bodily forms";--not, therefore, that man is re-incarnated
as man again and again upon this earth, for that is laid down as truth in the
above cited passages in the most positive and explicit form." (Review of T.P.W. in the Theosophist.)

And now for "Isis":

"We will now present a few fragments of this mysterious doctrine
of re-Incarnation--as distinct from metempsychosis--which we have from an
authority. Re-Incarnation, i.e., the appearance of the same
individual--or rather, of his astral monad--twice on the same planet is not a
rule in nature; it is an exception, like the teratological phenomenon of a
two-headed infant. It is preceded by a violation of the laws of harmony of
nature and happens only when the latter, seeking to restore its disturbed
equilibrium, violently throws back into earth-life the astral monad, which has
been tossed out of the circle of necessity by crime or accident. Thus in cases
of abortion, of infants dying before a certain age, and of congenital and
incurable idiocy, nature's original design to produce a perfect human being
has been interrupted. Therefore, while the gross matter of each of these
several entities is suffered to disperse itself at death through the vast
realm of being, the immortal Spirit and astral monad of the individual--the
latter having been set apart to animate a frame, and the former to shed its
divine light on the corporeal organization--must try a second time to carry
out the purpose of the creative intelligence. If reason has been so far
developed as to become active and discriminative, there is no re-incarnation
on, this earth, for the three parts of the triune man have been united
together, and he is capable of running the race. But when the new being has
not passed beyond the condition of monad, or when, as in the idiot, the
trinity has not been completed, the immortal spark which illuminates it has to
re-enter on the earthly planet, as it was frustrated in its first attempt. . .
. Further, the same occult doctrine recognizes another possibility, albeit so
rare and so vague that it is really useless to mention it. Even the modern
Occidental Occultists deny it, though it is universally accepted in Eastern
countries." . . .

This is the occasional return of the terribly depraved human
Spirits which have fallen to the eighth sphere--it is unnecessary to quote the
passage at length. Exclusive of that rare and doubtful possibility, then
"Isis"--I have quoted from volume I, pp. 351-2--allows only three
cases--abortion, very early death, and idiocy--in which re-Incarnation on this
earth occurs.

I am a long-suffering student of the mysteries, more apt to accuse
my own stupidity than to make "seeming discrepancies" an occasion for
scoffing. But after all, two and three will not make just four; black is not
white, nor, in reference to plain and definite statements, is "Yes" equivalent
to "No." If there is one thing which I ardently desire to be taught, it is the
truth about this same question of re-Incarnation. I hope I am not, as a
dutiful Theosophist, expected to reconcile the statement of "Isis" with that
of this authoritative Reviewer. But there is one consolation. The accomplished
authoress of "Isis" cannot have totally forgotten the teaching on this subject
therein contained. She, therefore, certainly did not dictate the statements of
the Reviewer. If I may conjecture that Koot Hoomi stands close behind the
latter, then assuredly Koot Hoomi is not, as has been maliciously suggested,
an alias for Madame Blavatsky.

"C.C.M."

We hope not--for Koot Hoomi's sake. Mme. B. would
become too vain and too proud, could she but dream of such an honour. But how
true the remark of the French classic: La critique est aisée, mais l'art est
difficile--though we feel more inclined to hang our diminished head in
sincere sorrow and exclaim: Et tu Brute!--than to quote old truisms.
Only, where that (even) "seeming discrepancy" is to be found between the two
passages--except by those who are entirely ignorant of the occult doctrine--will
be certainly a mystery to every Eastern Occultist who reads the above and who
studies at the same school as the reviewer of "The Perfect Way." Nevertheless
the latter is chosen as the weapon to break our head with. It is sufficient to
read No. 1 of the Fragments of Occult Truth, and ponder over the
septenary constitution of man into which the triple human entity is divided by
the occultists, to perceive that the "astral" monad is not the
"Spiritual" monad and vice versa. That there is no discrepancy
whatsoever between the two statements, may be easily shown, and we hope will be
shown, by our friend the "reviewer." The most that can be said of the passage
quoted from Isis is,that it is incomplete, chaotic, vague,
perhaps--clumsy, as many more passages in that work, the first literary
production of a foreigner, who even now can hardly boast of her knowledge of the
English language. Therefore, in the face of the statement from the very correct
and excellent review of "The Perfect Way"--we say again that "Reincarnation, i.e., the appearance of the same individual--or rather, of his astral monad (or the personality as claimed by the modern
Reincarnationists)--twice on the same planet is not a rule in nature "and that
it is an exception." Let us try once more to explain our meaning. The
reviewer speaks of the "Spiritual Individuality" or the Immortal Monad as
it is called, i.e. the 7th and 6th Principles in the Fragments. In Isis we refer to the personality or the Finite astral
monad, a compound of imponderable elements composed of the 5th and 4th
principles. The former as an emanation of the ONE absolute
is indestructible; the latter as an elementary compound is finite and doomed
sooner or later to destruction with the exception of the more spiritualized
portions of the 5th principle (the Manas or mind) which are assimilated
by the 6th principle when it follows the 7th to its "gestation state"
to be reborn or not reborn, as the case may be, in the Arupa Loka (the
Formless World). The seven principles, forming, so to say, a triad and a Quaternary, or, as some have it a "Compound Trinity" subdivided
into a triad and two duads may be better understood in the following groups of
Principles :

And now we ask,--where is the "discrepancy" or contradiction? Whether man was
good, bad, or indifferent, Group II has to become either a "shell," or to be
once or several times more reincarnated under "exceptional circumstances." There
is a mighty difference in our Occult doctrine between an impersonal Individuality, and an individual Personality. C.C.M. will not be
reincarnated; nor will he be in his next re-birth C.C.M., but quite a new being,
born of the thoughts and deeds of C.C.M.: his own creation, the child and fruit
of his present life, the effect of the causes he is now producing. Shall
we say then with the Spiritists that C.C.M., the man, we know, will be re-born
again? No; but that his divine Monad will be clothed thousands of times yet
before the end of the Grand Cycle, in various human forms, every one of them a new personality. Like a mighty tree that clothes itself every spring with
a new foliage, to see it wither and die towards autumn, so the eternal Monad
prevails through the series of smaller cycles, ever the same, yet ever changing
and putting on, at each birth, a new garment. The bud, that failed to open one
year, will re-appear in the next; the leaf that reached its maturity and died a
natural death--can never be re-born on the same tree again. While writing Isis, we were not permitted to enter into details; hence--the vague
generalities. We are told to do so now--and we do as we are commanded.

And thus, it seems, after all, that "two and three" will "make just four," if
the "three" was only mistaken for that number. And, we have heard of
cases when that, which was universally regarded and denounced as something very "black"--shockingly so--suddenly re-became "white," as soon as an
additional light was permitted to shine upon it. Well, the day may yet come when
even the much misunderstood occultists will appear in such a light. Vaut
mieux tard que jamais!

Meanwhile we will wait and see whether C.C.M. will quote again from our
present answer--in Light.